Where have you gone, Tony Blair?

Tony Blair gave a speech yesterday to the Council on Global Affairs. Almost to the day ten years previously,in April 1999, Blair spoke to the same group and laid out his ideas on "liberal interventionism". At the time you may remember, NATO was actively engaged in deposing Slobodan Milosoevic in the former Yugoslavia.  The attacks on 9/11 and the war in Iraq were still to come, of course, but Blair understood then -- as he does now -- that there are cases when military intervention is necessary to defend our interests. His concept of interventionism was the basis for Blair's steadfast support of the war in Iraq in 2003, and remains a key concept in his morally-centered vision of foreign policy. In a foreign policy establishment that has recently been taken over by idealists and apologists, Blair's view reminds me of how much I miss this courageous statesman on the world's stage. It is worth reading some of Blair's speech yesterday -- courtesy of the Wall Street Journal. It lays out clearly a view of the threat of Islamic radicalism that I completely agree with, and the importance of being resolute in combating it.  It is also the antithesis of Barack Obama's personality-driven foreign policy, where the power of Obama's simple presence is supposed to tame dictators and despots into "seeing the light".

"President Obama's reaching out to the Muslim world at the start of a new American administration is welcome, smart, and can play a big part in defeating the threat we face. It disarms those who want to say we made these enemies, that if we had been less confrontational they would have been different. It pulls potential moderates away from extremism.

But it will expose, too, the delusion of believing that there is any alternative to waging this struggle to its conclusion. The ideology we are fighting is not based on justice. That is a cause we can understand. And world-wide these groups are adept, certainly, at using causes that indeed are about justice, like Palestine. Their cause, at its core, however, is not about the pursuit of values that we can relate to; but in pursuit of values that directly contradict our way of life. They don't believe in democracy, equality or freedom. They will espouse, tactically, any of these values if necessary. But at heart what they want is a society and state run on their view of Islam. They are not pluralists. They are the antithesis of pluralism. And they don't think that only their own community or state should be like that. They think the world should be governed like that.

In other words, there may well be groups, or even Governments, that can be treated with, and with whom we can reach an accommodation. Negotiation and persuasion can work and should be our first resort. If they do, that's great, which is why if Hamas were to accept the principle of a peaceful two state solution, they could be part of the process agreeing it [sic]. But the ideology, as a movement within Islam, has to be defeated. It is incompatible not with "the West" but with any society of open and tolerant people and that in particular means the many open and tolerant Muslims."

This should be required reading in the salons of Europe, the halls of the UN and the corridors of the White House. It is critical for our security that we are able to speak openly and honestly about the nature of the threats arrayed against us. Diplomacy has its place, but comes with very real limits when interests, values and ideology are diametrically opposed. And while the left may believe that we can find some "rapport" and "accommodation" with Islamic radicals who seek to create an Islamic world, the reality is that this is a clash of civilizations that will have only one winner.

It is "us" or "them". This Blair understands. Pity that our president doesn't get it.

Against all enemies

Slated on Backbone Radio, Apr. 26 Listen every Sunday, 5-8pm on 710 KNUS, Denver... 1460 KZNT, Colorado Springs... and streaming live at 710knus.com.

The oath so many Americans have sworn, "to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," has a quaint and outmoded ring to it in this new age of Obama the Apologist, Obama the Meek. Who believes in enemies any more? We do, here at Backbone Radio. Sorry, all you dreamy pacifists out there. It's still a dangerous world, with plenty of nations and groups who wish us ill. Enemies is the only name for them, and strength is the only language they understand. Wishful thinking in the White House won't change that.

** This Sunday's show will take a global focus and a national security theme. I'll talk about how to protect our country with Richard V. Allen, former Reagan and Nixon adviser... Michael Tanji of the Center for Threat Awareness... and Daveed Gartenstein-Ross of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

** Plus Joseph C. Phillips, our man in Hollywood... and Rob "Sunny" Roseman, veteran of TV news in Denver.

Less than 100 days into the new administration, and we're told the terrorists can't be called that any more, but the patriots who advised on stopping them belong in jail. It's like a bad dream, only worse because this is real. If America is to be defended, you and I must stand strong as never before. In a word, the need is backbone. Here goes.

Yours for America the Good, JOHN ANDREWS

Add Napolitano to lunatics list

Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security secretary for Obama, was responsible for that silly report about the potential of veterans and single-issue voters to be recruited into right-wing extremism. She issued this hastily written document over objections by some of her advisors, and just before the Tea Parties, in an apparent attempt to intimidate conservative and other protesters. Then she made her infamous remarks about border security. She claimed falsely that the 9/11 terrorists got into the USA by crossing the Canadian border. She also implied falsely that there is no border security there. “The pattern at the Canadian border has been informality,” she went on to say. “The borders are going to be enabled with greater technology, but it’s not going to be going back and forth as if there’s no border anymore.” She knew nothing about the subject, but pretended that she did.

She even said that whatever is being done on our southern border should also be done on our northern border. So either we stop building a border security fence along the Mexican border, or else we build one along the Canadian border. (All 5000 kilometers of it? Another Great Wall of China?) Canadians are seeing and hearing these things and are wondering just how bonkers she really is.

Then she went on CNN and said, falsely, "And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil."

Last year, as governor of Arizona, she tried to cut off Sheriff Joe Arpaio's funding for cracking down on illegal immigration in Maricopa County. Apparently Obama thought that this made her the perfect candidate for heading up Homeland Security.

I hereby add Janet Napolitano to my list as Democrat Lunatic #8.

Note: Earlier entries on my Dem Lunatics List were Nancy Pelosi, RFK Jr., Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, and of course Barack Obama.

Shooting blanks

It is April 2010. Islamic terrorists have been caught attempting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge in New York with sophisticated high-explosives. The plot was recently uncovered by the CIA, and the FBI and New York law enforcement officials foiled the attempt to destroy the bridge in progress. Two of the terrorists committed suicide when caught, but two others were captured before they could explode their suicide vests. In the ensuing hours, the NSA picked up chatter indicating that one or more additional attacks were underway somewhere on the Eastern seaboard of the United States -- though when and where could not be ascertained. The two terrorists caught are immediately transported to an FBI holding cell. Using the tight rules for interrogation that the Obama administration has decreed, the FBI attempts to get them to tell authorities the operational details of the impending attacks. Neither will talk.  Interrogators are stymied by the fact that these terrorists know that the Obama administration has banned any enhanced interrogation techniques and they only need to stay silent. They do so, refusing to talk. As the clock ticks, Federal authorities raise the Homeland Security threat level and hope for the best -- knowing that they can do little to gain the information needed to prevent the additional attacks from happening.

Sound far fetched? Hardly. This is very real possibility that America could face in the future. The Obama administration has now created a situation where it has not only publicly banned the use of enhanced interrogation, but has made it abundantly clear that those officials who might -- in a moment of crisis -- issue an order to obtain information through the use of such techniques will be subject to future prosecution once the emergency has passed. In this environment, no one will be willing to cross any lines to ensure that we obtain the intelligence necessary to save American lives. The Justice Department will have issued directives making it clear that there is no gray area in questioning terrorist suspects, and that not even the "smoking gun" scenario that administration critics have warned about is justification for the use of harsh interrogation techniques. We have chosen our democratic values over our security, and it has been made clear that this is not a choice that is subject to interpretation. Terrorists get some hot coffee, a warm bed to sleep in and a government provided attorney. And the rest of us suffer the consequences.

This is a scenario that Barack Obama should think long and hard about. He needs to understand that the threat from Islamic terrorism remains grave, and that we need all the tools at our disposal to ensure our safety. Former CIA Director George Tenet and current National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair have made it clear that the now-banned interrogation techniques were extremely effective in gathering actionable intelligence that has saved American lives. We have now unilaterally disarmed ourselves in the fight against an existential terrorist threat -- like going into battle against AK-47 assault rifles with a single-shot pellet gun. Hardly a fair fight.

The real issue here is that the decision not to provide immunity to those who approve the use of enhanced interrogation when the nation is under threat will have a chilling effect in the future. It will now be impossible to find anyone to recommend, approve or execute any technique that will create personal legal jeopardy. Even with a smoking gun or impending attack, Obama has tied the nation's hands. We are now shooting blanks.

Barack Obama, you may think you are the most moral man in America, above reproach and without any doubt of your wisdom. But someday it may be you who personally has to issue an order you have deemed illegal, because there is no one in the chain of command who is willing to do it for you. And it might be you who has to get face-to-face with a terrorist in order to glean the information you know will save American lives, because no interrogator will do more than ask for name, rank and serial number.

And if you cross the line, Mr. President, you might find a president in the future instructing the Justice Department to investigate you for breaking the law.

You should be careful what you wish for, Mr. President.

Obama in wonderland

We've long known that Barack Obama is a man for whom image is everything. His appearances are carefully scripted down to the last detail,from the backdrop behind him during speeches to the adoring crowds at the front nearest the podium. He is coiffed and elegant, married to his teleprompter and ever-conscious of every utterance he makes. Barack Obama is the nation's actor-in-chief -- playing the role of American idealist, a role he is certain that will make America (and himself) more popular in the eyes of the world. But will it make us safer? This is the key question, because it is now apparent that our national security policy is now based not on the hard tactics of counter-terrorism, but on our popularity. This is now clear after his recent "apology tour" through Europe, and his glad-handing of dictators at the Americas Summit last week, where he allowed the prestige of his office to be downgraded to the likes of Hugo Chavez. And now, with the release of the "torture memos" that detail Bush administration interrogation techniques, Mr. Obama has now made it clear that he'd rather be popular than be safe.

Barack Obama and his administration are now on a quest to show once and for all that America seeks redemption for past "sins" after 9/11 where (in the president's words) "we lost our moral way". In doing so, he has now unleashed the furor of the left and the partisan attack dogs in Congress, and you can expect endless hearings and show trials to bring former Bush administration officials to account for their crimes. And what crimes are these? Endeavoring to keep the nation safe after a series of coordinated terrorist attacks on American soil that killed over 3,000 innocent Americans.

Some crime that is.

The decision to release these interrogation memos -- while leaving open the possibility of prosecuting the Bush administration lawyers who wrote them -- is based on a core belief that such actions before the court of world public opinion will make us safer. As Dorothy Rabinowitz points out today in the Wall Street Journal, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said on last Sunday's "This Week" that the White House is being guided by "higher concerns" than whether or not our past interrogation techniques yielded important intelligence that saved American lives. Rather, we are seeking to elevate our image in the eyes of the world and improve our status with the terrorists who want to destroy us. As Rabinowitz says:

"This would undermine al Qaeda, Mr. Emanuel explained, because those interrogations of ours helped to enlist terrorists to their cause. All of which was why the publication of the memos -- news of which would presumably touch the hearts of militants around the world -- would make America safer."

Thus in Obama's world, some quid-pro-quo actually exists with terrorists who behead their captives and wantonly commit mass murder against innocent civilians. This is the "blowback" school of thought -- that we have brought terrorism upon ourselves because of our hubris, our aggressive nature, our imperialist foreign policy, or our willingness to use loud music and cold temperatures in questioning detainees we've captured on the battlefield. This is the idealism of the left -- and Obama has now taken American national security smack into the middle of it. If it makes you feel better to take some moral high ground on this issue, fine. But don't delude yourself into thinking that it makes us safer. Al Qaeda and its minions hated us before "enhanced interrogation" and will hate us long after we become more popular in the court of world public opinion.

As I have written many times before, Islamic fundamentalism is an ideology that seeks our total destruction so that a world Islamic order can be formed. It isn't a popularity contest -- it is a clash of civilizations and a battle for our very future. And even more importantly, it is a battle where our enemy preys on our every weakness -- like our belief that we can talk our way into some accommodation with them. You can bet that somewhere in a cave on the Af-Pak border, Osama Bin Laden is laughing out loud at his good fortune to now have Barack Obama in the White House. Bin Laden and his ilk know the folly of what we have now embarked on. While it may make us feel better to have our values front and center, it also makes us weaker. And we are more vulnerable because of it.

We are now officially in Wonderland, headed down the rabbit-hole into a world that is actually well-known to us. We saw it in the 199os when we treated terrorism as a law-enforcement issue. We saw it in the first WTC attack in 1993, the Kenyan Embassy bombings, the Khobar Towers attack and the bombing of the USS Cole. We saw it all during the Clinton years, when we were popular but also vulnerable. Well before the first use of "enhanced interrogation", our enemies were working to destroy us. We've seen this all before.

Through his looking glass, Barack Obama apparently believes that past is not prelude, choosing to bet our security that we can be both popular and safe.

In Wonderland, of course, anything is possible.